Teen shot 7 times and killed by police officer - ruled "justified" of course

[Toni]

If we are honest, we recognize that we do not actually know that Deven attacked the officer. We were not there. There is no recording which shows Frost being attacked. He has injuries, yes. Is there evidence from an autopsy which conforms injuries to Deven's hands consistent with punching Frost? I don't know the answer to that question. Could Frost have sustained injuries by another means such as a fall or by Deven thrashing about while being ineffectively tased? Sure. We have only Frost's word about how he sustained those injuries.

We know from Loren that the taser was not used in defense of Officer Frost as it is not a defensive weapon, so it isn't the case, as you imply, that Frost was forced to shoot Deven when his taser failed to stop an attack. That simply did not happen.

This appears as if you're working over time to stretch facts -- which are consistent with there having been a fight -- into a story you prefer to believe.

Do you think police officers are just sadistic bastards who enjoy killing innocent kids? Even the white ones?

Your version of events would seem to require this.

Which is weird because I don't have a version of this.

I think that police officers are simply people. They are imperfect just as the rest of us are.

We know that the officer did not use the taser correctly. Why do we assume he used his firearm correctly? Why did he fire 7 times? At close range? Seven seems like a lot to have been intentional.

 

[RavenSky]

And Deven was on the end of a serious assault from officer Frost when he was tazed.

And yet it still didn't stop Deven from viciously attacking officer Frost. If the taser didn't stop him, what would ?

Provide factual evidence that Deven "viciously attacked" the cop. You can't. There is no such evidence. You are talking hyperbolic nonsense.

 

[TSwizzle]

And yet it still didn't stop Deven from viciously attacking officer Frost. If the taser didn't stop him, what would ?

Provide factual evidence that Deven "viciously attacked" the cop. You can't. There is no such evidence. You are talking hyperbolic nonsense.

Did I not direct you to the video earlier ? Because that would explain your incorrect assertion. Or are trolling also ?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And yet it still didn't stop Deven from viciously attacking officer Frost. If the taser didn't stop him, what would ?

If we are honest, we recognize that we do not actually know that Deven attacked the officer. We were not there. There is no recording which shows Frost being attacked. He has injuries, yes. Is there evidence from an autopsy which conforms injuries to Deven's hands consistent with punching Frost? I don't know the answer to that question. Could Frost have sustained injuries by another means such as a fall or by Deven thrashing about while being ineffectively tased? Sure. We have only Frost's word about how he sustained those injuries.

We know from Loren that the taser was not used in defense of Officer Frost as it is not a defensive weapon, so it isn't the case, as you imply, that Frost was forced to shoot Deven when his taser failed to stop an attack. That simply did not happen.

Do you have fur?

No, then you must be a bird.

 

[Toni]

Provide factual evidence that Deven "viciously attacked" the cop. You can't. There is no such evidence. You are talking hyperbolic nonsense.

Did I not direct you to the video earlier ? Because that would explain your incorrect assertion. Or are trolling also ?

I've watched the video multiple times.

I am not trolling but stating the truth: I see no vicious attack of Frost. I see the kid move his arm. No fist formed, no swinging as to fight or fight off. It's only a frame or a few frames.

I may be missing it. That is why I asked you for the time stamp. The quality of the video isn't terrific. I may be missing something.

 

[TSwizzle]

Did I not direct you to the video earlier ? Because that would explain your incorrect assertion. Or are trolling also ?

I've watched the video multiple times.

I am not trolling but stating the truth: I see no vicious attack of Frost. I see the kid move his arm. No fist formed, no swinging as to fight or fight off. It's only a frame or a few frames.

I may be missing it. That is why I asked you for the time stamp. The quality of the video isn't terrific. I may be missing something.

Look, I've been around here long enough to know how this works. You're going to go frame by frame and explain it all away that Deven wasn't flailing his arms and hands at officer Frost, merely stretching his hand out in an effort to shake hands. Or that Devon wasn't charging at officer Frost as an attack, merely advancing to the officer to "hug it out".

Stroll on.

 

[abaddon]

I may be missing it.

You’re not, there’s no living witness to a fight other than only Sgt Frost himself. People assume a fight because of the officer’s bloodied bruised face and the officer’s claim that he was attacked. Faith masquerading as “reason”. TSwizzle doesn’t seem to understand this is a skeptic’s board where non-evidenced assertions routinely get challenged.

 

[TSwizzle]

*sniff* I think I can smell some male bovine excrement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We know that the officer did not use the taser correctly. Why do we assume he used his firearm correctly? Why did he fire 7 times? At close range? Seven seems like a lot to have been intentional.

We know nothing of the sort. All we know is that it failed, not why. Given the weather it might simply have been due to his clothes--winter jackets are often thick enough to stop a taser.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet it still didn't stop Deven from viciously attacking officer Frost. If the taser didn't stop him, what would ?

Provide factual evidence that Deven "viciously attacked" the cop. You can't. There is no such evidence. You are talking hyperbolic nonsense.

Of course we can't prove "vicious", but who else attacked the cop? He was injured and there was nobody else around--and the video did capture one frame that looks like an incoming punch.

 

[abaddon]

Given the weather it might simply have been due to his clothes--winter jackets are often thick enough to stop a taser.

So when you watched the video… you saw a winter jacket?

… but who else attacked the cop? He was injured and there was nobody else around--and the video did capture one frame that looks like an incoming punch.

It’s extremely easy to see why people conclude there’s a fight; the mind tends to fill in the blanks of what’s not known with easy answers. But skepticism requires people to not do that.

There may very well have been a fight however it’s not demonstrably true. So you can understand why some of us don’t take the officer at his word since there are other ways and means for him to have bumped his head than get attacked.

You needn't bother repeating what you already said about this earlier in the thread, we already know you mistakenly believe it can be deduced with logic.

 

[RavenSky]

And yet it still didn't stop Deven from viciously attacking officer Frost. If the taser didn't stop him, what would ?

Provide factual evidence that Deven "viciously attacked" the cop. You can't. There is no such evidence. You are talking hyperbolic nonsense.

Of course we can't prove "vicious", but who else attacked the cop? He was injured and there was nobody else around--and the video did capture one frame that looks like an incoming punch.

You are correct that no one can prove "vicious" because it is hyperbolic bullshit.

But you are assuming without evidence that the cop was "attacked". Yes, he had an injury on his face. We have a photograph documenting that. We have zero factual evidence of how that happened. Perhaps the teen uncharacteristically "viciously attacked" the cop, but there is absolutely nothing in the teen's background or factual actions that night to suggest he suddenly became "vicious" and "attacked" anyone. Perhaps the cop tripped and injured his own face. Maybe the cop "viciously attacked" the teen & got his face injured in the struggle. Maybe Bigfoot came out of the forest and tried to take a bite out of the officer's face. WE DON'T KNOW. I can speculate. You can speculate. You can pretend that your opinion holds more weight than mine and I will disagree, but that will never negate that you are only stating your belief (that the teen "attacked" the police officer); and that Twizzle is hyperbolically embellishing that opinion by tacking on the inflammatory word "viciously"

 

[laughing dog]

If we are honest, we recognize that we do not actually know that Deven attacked the officer. We were not there. There is no recording which shows Frost being attacked. He has injuries, yes. Is there evidence from an autopsy which conforms injuries to Deven's hands consistent with punching Frost? I don't know the answer to that question. Could Frost have sustained injuries by another means such as a fall or by Deven thrashing about while being ineffectively tased? Sure. We have only Frost's word about how he sustained those injuries.

We know from Loren that the taser was not used in defense of Officer Frost as it is not a defensive weapon, so it isn't the case, as you imply, that Frost was forced to shoot Deven when his taser failed to stop an attack. That simply did not happen.

Do you have fur?

No, then you must be a bird.

How long is your wing span?

 

[dismal]

This appears as if you're working over time to stretch facts -- which are consistent with there having been a fight -- into a story you prefer to believe.

Do you think police officers are just sadistic bastards who enjoy killing innocent kids? Even the white ones?

Your version of events would seem to require this.

Which is weird because I don't have a version of this.

I think that police officers are simply people. They are imperfect just as the rest of us are.

We know that the officer did not use the taser correctly. Why do we assume he used his firearm correctly? Why did he fire 7 times? At close range? Seven seems like a lot to have been intentional.

Who ever said he wasn't intentionally using his firearm?

The only question is why. He says self defense, you seem to want to believe he just felt like killing a kid that day.

 

[Playball40]

I may be missing it.

You’re not, there’s no living witness to a fight other than only Sgt Frost himself. People assume a fight because of the officer’s bloodied bruised face and the officer’s claim that he was attacked. Faith masquerading as “reason”. TSwizzle doesn’t seem to understand this is a skeptic’s board where non-evidenced assertions routinely get challenged.

Sounds like Zimmerman!

 

[Toni]

Which is weird because I don't have a version of this.

I think that police officers are simply people. They are imperfect just as the rest of us are.

We know that the officer did not use the taser correctly. Why do we assume he used his firearm correctly? Why did he fire 7 times? At close range? Seven seems like a lot to have been intentional.

Who ever said he wasn't intentionally using his firearm?

The only question is why. He says self defense, you seem to want to believe he just felt like killing a kid that day.

No I don't believe he just wanted to kill someone.

I am wondering if he actually intended to fire at all. I am also wondering why he fired 7 times.

 

[dismal]

why people conclude there’s a fight; the mind tends to fill in the blanks of what’s not known with easy answers. But skepticism requires people to not do that.

Do you accept these as facts:

1) The officer seems level headed and to be conducting a fairly routine traffic stop
2) The kid is not cooperative in the traffic stop
3) The kid was told to be lying on the ground
4) At some point after that he is on video on his feet coming at the officer swinging his arms
5) The camera breaks
6) The officers face is beaten up
7) The kid ends up shot

One possible explanation for this is that the officer shot the kid in self defense. Indeed this is the officer's explanation.

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

Putting on your nicest skeptic hat, what are the other possibilities that you feel fit the evidence better?

 

[dismal]

Who ever said he wasn't intentionally using his firearm?

The only question is why. He says self defense, you seem to want to believe he just felt like killing a kid that day.

No I don't believe he just wanted to kill someone.

I am wondering if he actually intended to fire at all. I am also wondering why he fired 7 times.

Not sure why it matters how many times he shot. He was committed to using lethal force. The question is only whether lethal force was appropriate.

 

[atrib]

You're engaging in an emotional appeal without addressing the facts. Emotional appeals that don't address the facts are basically an admission that you're wrong but you don't like the truth.

The facts of the case are that a police officer shot and killed an unarmed person after initiating a traffic stop that was unnecessary, and after escalating the stop by trying to electrocute said unarmed person despite the fact that said person did not pose a threat to the officer or to the public at large. Those are the facts that are in evidence based on the video. The actions of the police officer are way out of proportion to the nature of the offense. At the very minimum, the officer demonstrated a lack of competency at doing his job, and likely also a reckless and callous disregard for the life and safety of a person in the community he was sworn to protect. A badge does not give the police the right to summarily execute people over minor traffic offenses.

 

[TSwizzle]

But you are assuming without evidence that the cop was "attacked".

This is only true if you ignore the video evidence. There is a link to the video in the OP.

 

[laughing dog]

But you are assuming without evidence that the cop was "attacked".

This is only true if you ignore the video evidence. There is a link to the video in the OP.

And most people in this thread who have watched the video do not see the attack. You claim it is there, but you refuse to provide the time stamp on the video to support your claim.

In plain english, your claim is unsubstantiated.